You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
2

[–] selrahc007 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

For every 7cm of water, radiation level is cut in half. I'm not seeing any problem here.

0
7

[–] MonitoredCitizen 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

That was a comic about a pool of contained, nonmoving water you were looking at, where water's effectiveness as a shield was being considered. With the Fukushima plant, the groundwater is flowing and is a radiation contaminant conveyance, not a shield. The contaminated groundwater is carrying Strontium and Plutonium, among other radioactive elements, to the ocean where it is able to come into direct contact with life. See the part about "touching your elbows to ..." in the text.

0
0

[–] selrahc007 ago 

So the problem is not about radioisotopes flowing into the pacific, but staying in groundwater. Glad for the correction

0
3

[–] vicarious 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Do you have any source for that ? It's the first time I read such a claim. If that's really the case, does that mean that there is virtually no radiation left after 1m of water ? Then why don't we just throw all our radioactive waste in the sea ?

1
3

[–] selrahc007 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

http://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ It's not like some government-approved paper or anything, but he used to work at NASA so I usually trust his info.

2
0

[–] repoman 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago  (edited ago)

The sea has a tendency to churn about what with tides and waves and all. It also has a tendency to corrode metal rods a bit faster than a calm, filtered pool of fresh water. Lastly, most commercial fishermen do not fish in spent fuel pools as opposed to the ocean.